Iranian Explosion was No Accident, Says Arab Council Director

23 December 2015IMUN Press Corps

Though there is heavy dispute as to whether or not the 9/11 attacks were indeed a false flag operation, there is no doubt that the attack today, which left 27 people dead, was staged to start a conflict. Earlier today, an explosion occurred at an Iranian nuclear power station. The event was later confirmed to not have been an accident. Witnesses stated that a lone terrorist, who was originally thought to be an Israeli counter intelligence supporter, infiltrated the station and detonated an explosive device. The initial speculation of Israel’s involvement launched an intense and sudden conflict between the two nations. An emergency United Nations meeting was held, in which Al Jazeera was granted exclusive access to the delegation. The meeting opened with a moderated caucus, where delegates established their positions on the issue and its intended resolution. At the time that the meeting was called, very little information was available of the incident, and thus many of the members of the union assumed that the Islamic State was involved. An unfazed representative of Qatar stated that the nation “will not be hindered by fear of ISIS.” Algeria immediately took a controversial standpoint, stating that they “are proud to support the Assad government.” Syria requested that the nations of “the Arab League” at the conference “unite together and work together to find a solution.” And while Palestine agreed with this point of view, they explicitly stated that it should be done “without so much help from other countries.” It was requested that the caucus be extended by five minutes, a motion which was voted on and ultimately granted. A Turkish delegate believed that what was unfolding was more than just a brief conflict, and called for the delegation to “recognize the new war breaking out in the region between Israel and Iran.” Djibouti defined the event as an isolated conflict, but one that required international collaboration to solve. Algeria, on the other hand, called for a ceasefire and “a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to the crisis.” Pakistan supported this mode of progress. Yemen, on the other hand, demanded that the primary source of the conflict (Iraq and Syria) be attacked. Turkey retorted, citing that they “do not need another player on the field.” Algeria was fervent in preventing this, defending their stance that “conflict breeds terrorism.” The Syrian collaboration demanded more information before making any more statements, asking “what this war is even about?” A Syrian request for a ten minute unmoderated caucus was brutally denied, but a moderated caucus of the same length was settled upon. The topic was whether or not to establish a new government in Syria with the supervision of the UN. Oman was drastically opposed to this, demanding that the Syrian people appoint their own new governing body. Turkey directly attacked the suggestion, demanding that Syria stops supporting the PKK to avoid being overthrown. Djibouti and Egypt, demanding immediate action, were in favour of a new government, but did not want any involvement from the US due to previous occupations from the North American superpower. Algeria found a change in government while talking about stability would be hippocritical, adding that “a change in government would be irresponsible at this time. After a short break, the nature of the attack and the alleged Israeli perpetrator was revealed. Turkey then made a final comment before the caucus concluded, expressing agreement with Algeria in all aspects except for support of the Assad. An overwhelming majority agreed, with all but three members in favour, that a five minute unmoderated caucus was in order. In an exclusive interview with an Algerian representative, an already established point was reinforced. His stance had not changed, he highlighted the need for non-violent change, moderated by the UN, and only after a resolution to the conflict, adding that “violent takeovers destroy nations.” A Syrian representative requested a collaborative effort to eliminate ISIS’s access to oil fields. When Djibouti was asked for comment on the elimination of these fields, a delegate who was tentative on the use of brute force responded favourably to the use of airstrikes. Palestine declined to make a comment, but later made a public statement expressing concern that cutting off ISIS financially will result in them working together “with other groups such as Boko Haram.” Turkey disagreed, stating that defeating ISIS “will prove to Boko Haram that they are not strong enough.” During this dispute, new information was revealed of the attack. The terrorist involved was a member of ISIS, not an Israeli. The intent of the attack was to frame Israel, successfully sparking a conflict. There was disagreement among all delegates, with no conclusion reached before the conclusion of the first meeting. And so the world of Model United Nations turns…

Where Students Choose To Be